Ruud Broens wrote:
Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here,
start with dispensing with the debating trade technique,
then learn how to write coherently :-)

Rudy

"debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I
think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio
conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate
debating technique? Please advise.

If I am right, it will come as no surprise. You can tell by their total
ignorance of proper debating technique that they were educated at poor
schools and jumped-up polytechnics without debating societies. Debating
skill is learned, just like electronics. If you didn't learn to
communicate and persuade effectively, you probably didn't learn
electronics too well either. That could explain a lot of continual
exasperation with these two.

Andre Jute

Here's Poopie's hectoring kindergarten lecture and Ruud's full response
for context:

Ruud Broens wrote:
"Pooh Bear" wrote in message
...
: As a consequence of the issues raised in the recent debates, I'm
: amazed that there seems to be widespread assumption here that the gain
: of a tube output stage ( SET *or* P-P ) is simply derived from a stock
: equation.
:
: In the gain equation the plate load determines the upper term.
:
: Where the ( refelcted ) load has a variable impedance ( such as a
: loudspeaker ) then this term is also variable.
:
: Hence in the real world - it's impossible for such a circuit
: configuration to have a flat frequency response. From first
: principles.
:
: A flat frequency response can only exist into a pure resitive load.
: Speakers are *not* pure resistive by any means.
:
: The response can be *improved* by negative feedback but the response
: errors can never be eliminated.
:
: This only applies to circuits with the load in the plate circuit.
: Loads in the cathode have no such problem by reason of the circuit
: operation ( some understanding of electronic theory is presumed ).
:
: Graham
:
Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here,
start with dispensing with the debating trade technique,
then learn how to write coherently :-)

Rudy

o, btw, we know Rp is a dynamic, current dependent impedance
with ul or triodes in pp, that is of no concern as it balances out
and as long as that stays well below reflected impedance it is
close enough to a 'perfect voltage driven loudspeaker'.

with se you can make the change in Rp small by using a high
current bias, then using a transformer that will give a reflected
impedance well above Rp-avg., no problems, either

so what was ya gonna say ?

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Ruud Broens wrote:
Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here,
start with dispensing with the debating trade technique,
then learn how to write coherently :-)

Rudy

"debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I
think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio
conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate
debating technique? Please advise.

It is debate in the political sense; deliberate and frequently adroit
misrepresentation, misdirection, or diversion. It incorporates all the
tricks of the masters of down-and-dirty street fighting, with none of the
ethics of scholastic debate.

Now permit me to ask a polite question. With respect to the argment on SET
frequency response, what is the impedance of the speakers you drive? Is it
on the order of 100 ohms, or in excess? With all due respect, speakers in
the normal range of mainstream commercial offerings do experience frequency
response variations due to nonconstant impedance over the audio band. One
way of dealing with this is with a Zobel network:
http://www.trueaudio.com/st_zobel.htm

Let's have an intelligent discussion. I am interested in learning what you
do.

Andre Jute wrote:

Ruud Broens wrote:
Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here,
start with dispensing with the debating trade technique,
then learn how to write coherently :-)

Rudy

"debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I
think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio
conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate
debating technique? Please advise.

If I am right, it will come as no surprise. You can tell by their total
ignorance of proper debating technique that they were educated at poor
schools and jumped-up polytechnics without debating societies. Debating
skill is learned, just like electronics. If you didn't learn to
communicate and persuade effectively, you probably didn't learn
electronics too well either. That could explain a lot of continual
exasperation with these two.

You're very mistaken about my education in that case.

Truth is - I've never met such an ignorant self-serving, opinionated,
waffling, lying jerk as yourself posing as "Mr bloody Know-All" when you
could actually fit your knowledge of audio electronics on the back of a
postage stamp.

Graham

Pooh Bear, Fattest DJ in the Universe, wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Ruud Broens wrote:
Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here,
start with dispensing with the debating trade technique,
then learn how to write coherently :-)

Rudy

"debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I
think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio
conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate
debating technique? Please advise.

If I am right, it will come as no surprise. You can tell by their total
ignorance of proper debating technique that they were educated at poor
schools and jumped-up polytechnics without debating societies. Debating
skill is learned, just like electronics. If you didn't learn to
communicate and persuade effectively, you probably didn't learn
electronics too well either. That could explain a lot of continual
exasperation with these two.

You're very mistaken about my education in that case.

Truth is - I've never met such an ignorant self-serving, opinionated,
waffling, lying jerk as yourself posing as "Mr bloody Know-All" when you
could actually fit your knowledge of audio electronics on the back of a
postage stamp.

Graham

And one might add a couple of things about Graham Poopie Stevenson:

1. Debating in a civilized manner in school and college, where young
passions migh flare, is excellent training in anger management and
channelling into socially productive activies. Instead, having missed
out, he is a disruptive influence.

2. Zero culture-damaged hearing syndrome. The only music at Poopie
Stevenson's jumped-up provincial poly was very loud rock played in a
hall with concrete beams in the ceiling. Draw your own conclusion.

Andre Jute

Robert Morein wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Ruud Broens wrote:
Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here,
start with dispensing with the debating trade technique,
then learn how to write coherently :-)

Rudy

"debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I
think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio
conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate
debating technique? Please advise.

It is debate in the political sense; deliberate and frequently adroit
misrepresentation, misdirection, or diversion. It incorporates all the
tricks of the masters of down-and-dirty street fighting, with none of the
ethics of scholastic debate.

In the States that may be true. But I doubt Krueger would be let into a
political campaign at any level; he is simply too crude.

In Britain elections are amazingly clean. There are laws, strictly
enforced about personal smear campaigns on opposition pols. So
Stevenson didn't learn his dirty tricks in British politics either.

Perhaps Krueger and Poopie are just clumsy and abusive by character,
that is, to everyone.

I'm moving the rest of your post to a separate thread because we don't
want it contaminated by the "down-and-dirty street fighting" of the
usual slime.

Andre Jute

Andre Jute wrote:

Pooh Bear, Fattest DJ in the Universe, wrote:
Andre Jute wrote:

Ruud Broens wrote:
Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here,
start with dispensing with the debating trade technique,
then learn how to write coherently :-)

Rudy

"debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I
think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio
conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate
debating technique? Please advise.

If I am right, it will come as no surprise. You can tell by their total
ignorance of proper debating technique that they were educated at poor
schools and jumped-up polytechnics without debating societies. Debating
skill is learned, just like electronics. If you didn't learn to
communicate and persuade effectively, you probably didn't learn
electronics too well either. That could explain a lot of continual
exasperation with these two.

You're very mistaken about my education in that case.

Truth is - I've never met such an ignorant self-serving, opinionated,
waffling, lying jerk as yourself posing as "Mr bloody Know-All" when you
could actually fit your knowledge of audio electronics on the back of a
postage stamp.

Graham

And one might add a couple of things about Graham Poopie Stevenson:

1. Debating in a civilized manner in school and college, where young
passions migh flare, is excellent training in anger management and
channelling into socially productive activies. Instead, having missed
out, he is a disruptive influence.

I reserve my wrath for those who truly deserve it.

I am remarkably tolerant in my everyday life but I have little tolerance for
charlatans like yourself.


2. Zero culture-damaged hearing syndrome. The only music at Poopie
Stevenson's jumped-up provincial poly was very loud rock played in a
hall with concrete beams in the ceiling. Draw your own conclusion.

Typical idiotic rant based on nothing of substance. One thing about being the
sound engineer is that you're actually a long way from the speakers btw ! I
don't believe in using *excessive* spl anyway. I have indeed walked away from
events I considered stupidly loud.

The only 'poly' I've been to was the local one at Hatfield where some friends
were studying. It had a decent SU bar and some good gigs in the various halls.

I went to London University. The school wanted me to apply to Cambridge but as
I wasn't gay it didn't appeal.

Graham

Robert Morein wrote:

"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Ruud Broens wrote:
Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here,
start with dispensing with the debating trade technique,
then learn how to write coherently :-)

Rudy

"debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I
think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio
conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate
debating technique? Please advise.

It is debate in the political sense; deliberate and frequently adroit
misrepresentation, misdirection, or diversion. It incorporates all the
tricks of the masters of down-and-dirty street fighting, with none of the
ethics of scholastic debate.

Now permit me to ask a polite question. With respect to the argment on SET
frequency response, what is the impedance of the speakers you drive? Is it
on the order of 100 ohms, or in excess? With all due respect, speakers in
the normal range of mainstream commercial offerings do experience frequency
response variations due to nonconstant impedance over the audio band. One
way of dealing with this is with a Zobel network:
http://www.trueaudio.com/st_zobel.htm

Let's have an intelligent discussion. I am interested in learning what you
do.

100 ohms ? You're kidding surely ?

You might be interested to know that I helped design a speaker that was
'impedance corrected' so as to maintain a very close to nominal 8 ohms over the
entire audio frequency range.

It did indeed use something similar to 'Zobels'.

Not much you can do about the LF resonance though.

Graham

On 19 Dec 2005 14:54:45 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Does it think what I
think it means

Being a perfectionist, Andre, you might like to rephrase this.

Incidentally, endlessly picking at grammar and spelling is part of the
"debating trade". The best part, in my opinion. :-)

On 19 Dec 2005 15:59:38 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:


Robert Morein wrote:
"Andre Jute" wrote in message
ups.com...
Ruud Broens wrote:
Graham, if you reallly want to discuss something here,
start with dispensing with the debating trade technique,
then learn how to write coherently :-)

Rudy

"debating trade technique" -- I keep seeing this. Does it think what I
think it means, that the trailer park trash flaming the audio
conferences, e.g. Arny Krueger and Poopie Stevenson, have no legitimate
debating technique? Please advise.

It is debate in the political sense; deliberate and frequently adroit
misrepresentation, misdirection, or diversion. It incorporates all the
tricks of the masters of down-and-dirty street fighting, with none of the
ethics of scholastic debate.

In the States that may be true. But I doubt Krueger would be let into a
political campaign at any level; he is simply too crude.

In Britain elections are amazingly clean. There are laws, strictly
enforced about personal smear campaigns on opposition pols. So
Stevenson didn't learn his dirty tricks in British politics either.

Perhaps Krueger and Poopie are just clumsy and abusive by character,
that is, to everyone.

I'm moving the rest of your post to a separate thread because we don't
want it contaminated by the "down-and-dirty street fighting" of the
usual slime.


It's sweet when two geniuses meet on the crowded internet.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 12:22:03 +0000, Goofball_star_dot_etal
wrote:

I'm moving the rest of your post to a separate thread because we don't
want it contaminated by the "down-and-dirty street fighting" of the
usual slime.


It's sweet when two geniuses meet on the crowded internet.

Very sweet. Yet it's frightening to think what progeny such a union
would produce. :-)

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On 19 Dec 2005 14:54:45 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Does it think what I
think it means

Being a perfectionist, Andre, you might like to rephrase this.

Incidentally, endlessly picking at grammar and spelling is part of the
"debating trade". The best part, in my opinion. :-)

Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb

paul packer wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 14:54:45 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Does it think what I
think it means

Being a perfectionist, Andre, you might like to rephrase this.

Incidentally, endlessly picking at grammar and spelling is part of the
"debating trade". The best part, in my opinion. :-)

Not at all, Paul. That is not a grammatical error, or a mistyping for
"that mean", that is a sideswipe at slime. "It", not he or she,
indicates that I believe that those who perpetrate these crimes upon
civilization, as expressed in audiophile pursuits, are aliens, not
humans, and "think" is of course a savagely sarcastic comment on their
braindead condition.

You'd get further arguing with me that Krueger and Poopie Stevenson and
their hangers-on aren't "braindead" because they never had any brains
to die, but I'm too nice to think that even of the enemies of fidelity.
Even under torture you'll never make me admit I thought such a
politically incorrect thing.

Andre Jute

PS Oh, by the way, Paul, it is politically very incorrect for you, and
beside poor manners utterly untypical of an Australian gentleman, to
abuse me, a poor stateless immigrant (I was when I became an
Australian), whose first language wasn't English, not by half a dozen
or so, for not speaking the language "proper". It is furthermore an
insult to the man who taught me Latin and Greek (and who christened me
the Crown Prince of Chaos, but I've forgiven him that) rather
effectively; for that, when I ascended to influence partly because I
could make politicians and industrialists believe, without ever telling
a lie of course, that I said what they wanted to hear, I had him in his
retirement given the rich contract to write the English textbook for
all the schools in the country, which made him an instant millionaire.

Dédé Jute wrote :

PS Oh, by the way, Paul, it is politically very incorrect for you,


You see Paul, even Dédé agrees with me.


--
"Nobody seemes to have actaully read what i wrote.
But what's new around here?"

Dave Weil, Sun, 05 Oct 2003 00:57:15

Robert Morein said:

The best part, in my opinion. :-)

Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb

Your participle is dangling.

George M. Middius cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net
wrote:

Robert Morein said:

The best part, in my opinion. :-)

Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb

Your participle is dangling.

In your (sick) dreams...

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Robert Morein said:

The best part, in my opinion. :-)

Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb

Your participle is dangling.


"At least" my participle is erect.

On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:35:48 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On 19 Dec 2005 14:54:45 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Does it think what I
think it means

Being a perfectionist, Andre, you might like to rephrase this.

Incidentally, endlessly picking at grammar and spelling is part of the
"debating trade". The best part, in my opinion. :-)

Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb

But I like it that way, so there. :-)

Clyde Slick said:

The best part, in my opinion. :-)

Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb

Your participle is dangling.

"At least" my participle is erect.

No proof required. We're happy to take your word on it.

"George M. Middius" cmndr [underscore] george [at] comcast [dot] net wrote
in message ...


Clyde Slick said:

The best part, in my opinion. :-)

Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb

Your participle is dangling.

"At least" my participle is erect.

No proof required. We're happy to take your word on it.

Your verb is down.

"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:35:48 -0500, "Robert Morein"
wrote:


"paul packer" wrote in message
...
On 19 Dec 2005 14:54:45 -0800, "Andre Jute" wrote:

Does it think what I
think it means

Being a perfectionist, Andre, you might like to rephrase this.

Incidentally, endlessly picking at grammar and spelling is part of the
"debating trade". The best part, in my opinion. :-)

Your last sentence is actually a fragment, lacking a verb

But I like it that way, so there. :-)

This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.

Robert Morein said:

This is the sort of English up with which I will not put.

Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. LOt"S!